Brass torn over fourth star for Guard chief, seat at table
Posted on Thursday, February 1, 2007
WASHINGTON — A Congressional proposal that would in part give the chief of the National Guard a fourth star and make him a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff met with more criticism Wednesday during the final hearing by a federal commission studying the National Guard and Reserve forces.
At a hearing in mid-December, the proposal drew harsh criticism from U. S. Army and Department of Defense officials.
Wednesday’s hearing offered mixed views, with Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, speaking in favor of the legislation; Army Secretary Francis Harvey opposing every aspect of the proposal; and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, favoring some parts of the bill and offering compromise on others.
Blum told the 13-member Commission on the National Guard and Reserves that the National Guard needs a stronger voice at the Pentagon when it comes to doling out funds, equipment and changing policies that affect citizen-soldiers and airmen.
Blum is included in such meetings informally when invited. While decisions are made every day at the Department of the Army that affect the National Guard, Guard officials are not always in on the discussion.
“You can’t get called to most of the huddles and play on the team,” Blum told the commission. “You have to be to all of them. That’s why it can’t be ad hoc. It has to be formalized. There has to be a chair at the table that says National Guard.” Language in the once-failed and newly resurrected legislation — the proposed National Defense Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act — would make the National Guard chief a four-star general and add him to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The proposal also would make the National Guard Bureau independent from the Army and Air Force for budgeting and equipment acquisition.
And, for the first time since the beginning of the National Guard, it would give Guard leadership more influence in the Pentagon’s planning and budgeting.
The legislation was initially proposed in 2006, but failed in committee.
If it passes this time, Arkansas will be ready for it.
On Wednesday, the state Legislature passed a bill that allows the adjutant general to hold the rank of lieutenant general — with three stars. State Rep. Jeff Wood, D-Sherwood, said he proposed the legislation to be ready if the federal proposal passes.
The federal plan calls for a deputy commander position at U. S. Army Northern Command to be held by a National Guardsman or reservist. While almost all the witnesses at the hearings agreed that more guardsmen and reservists should work at major commands, not everyone agreed with having a job set aside specifically for them.
The commission was originally created in 2005 to survey law and policy as they pertain to the National Guard and Reserve and make recommendations on any changes to how the forces are used, organized, trained, equipped and compensated. The 2007 Defense Authorization Act expanded the commission’s duties, directing it to study the feasibility of the legislation pending before Congress: Senate Bill 2659 and House Resolution 5200.
The commission will issue its recommendations to Congress on March 1.
“In seeking to give the chief of the National Guard Bureau a larger voice in decision-making and resource allocation within the Pentagon, this legislation would alter a number of existing relationships in [Department of Defense ], the Joint Staff and the services, and, frankly, probably in the interagency process as well,” said Arnold Punaro, commission chairman.
At issue is how the use of Guard and Reserve troops during wartime can affect a state’s ability to take care of itself during a crisis. The National Guard’s dual mission of being at the beck and call of a governor as well as the president make Army equipment shortages a local government issue. National Guard units face equipment shortages in state disasters when most equipment is being diverted to the war effort.
That, Blum said, is a $ 40 billion problem.
That is how much he said it will cost for equipment to bring the National Guard up to an acceptable level of readiness for homeland security and state disaster response.
About $ 21 billion is in the defense budget for National Guard equipment.
“We [respond to help local authorities ] on a fairly routine basis,” Blum told Commissioner Wade Rowley. “I can’t think of a day we haven’t done that.” From rescuing hikers to helping with ice storms, Blum said on average 1, 100 guardsmen are on duty assisting local authorities every day.
That aspect of the National Guard is not always thought of at the Pentagon, Blum said, and that is why a stronger voice is needed to explain the unique demands on Guardsmen.
Commissioner James Sherrard asked Blum who sets the standard for equipping the National Guard for homeland security-type missions.
“Presently, no one,” Blum said.
Asked if it would help to have more National Guardsmen and Reservists integrated into the ranks of U. S. Army Northern Command, which helps coordinate homeland security and stateside disasters, Blum said, “Absolutely.” That wouldn’t help the equipment shortage, though. Blum argued that the dual role of the Guard means that equipment that would not be permitted to be used in the war should not be deemed suitable for the homeland security mission. That, however, is not the way it works now. Equipment is doled out on the basis of wartime needs.
“I think we can sustain 60, 000 soldiers for the war-fight in perpetuity as long as the American people support it,” Blum said, adding that 65 percent of the nation’s 350, 000 National Guardsmen are combat veterans of Iraq or Afghanistan.
Harvey agreed that the National Guard and Reserve are an “integral part of the fighting force. We must have continual access to Guard and Reserve forces.” But he called the proposed legislation “at best, unnecessary.” “It would confuse command and control relationships and lines of authority that the Department [of the Army ] has formed over the past 20 years,” he said.
Harvey said the legislation was the result of “decades of neglect” of Guard and Reserve forces and their treatment as a strategic reserve rather than an operation force as they now are.
“Quite frankly, the proposed solution is intended to solve a problem that does not exist,” he said. Adding the chief of the Guard Bureau to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he said, would complicate his job as secretary of the Army.
“Do you think the National Guard and Reserve has a full seat at the table ?” Punaro asked.
“They’re fully engaged in all the decision-making processes,” Harvey said, adding that it was an informal setup based on good working relationships.
As for making the deputy commander of U. S. Northern Command a slot solely for a guardsman or reservist, Harvey said, “I don’t think that’s a very good idea. I don’t think we should specify it.” Pace said more guardsmen and reservists should be in every major command, but he agreed the placement should not be too specific. He suggested requiring one of the top three positions in a command be held by a guardsman or reservist.
As for placing a four-star general in charge of the National Guard, Pace said that requires more study, and Harvey strongly opposed it.
“The rank and position should be commensurate with the responsibility,” Harvey said. “He does not have command responsibility, budget responsibility, manpower or equipment responsibility. I do not believe the rank of four-star is appropriate.” If the legislation passed, however, those responsibilities would be shifted from the Department of the Army to the National Guard. And that, Harvey said, “would be an expensive proposition,” because of the staff that would be added to handle the responsibility.
Pressed by the commission, Blum said he agreed with having the Guard chief wearing four stars. “The scope and responsibility of the job clearly mandates the position,” he said.
Pace said the idea is worth considering, but that he didn’t see the justification yet.
He does favor creating a formal line of communication between the National Guard chief and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, giving the National Guard a direct line to the secretary of defense.
“There’s no relationship in the charter [that created the National Guard Bureau ] between the chief of the Guard Bureau, the secretary of defense or the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” he said. “Truth of the matter is, those people know Steve Blum knows a lot of stuff.”
FEEDBACK:
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online
